Laminar Flow Explained | P-51 Mustang Case Study

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Let me know what educational videos you'd like from me in the future! Happy New Year!

[@hansm_0161]

Happy New Year Adam!

[@matheusdelimarodrigues4410]

Happy new year dude!!

[@terrado6746]

Happy New Year Adam 😃 And since it's already in the game, what about an analysis of the F-104 desing... Because as i understand is a direct example of ultra low drag/supersonic tecnology

[@avidaviation67]

Happy New Year

[@juanordonezgalban2278]

Happy new year! I'd like yo know more about propellers. I know they are basically wings spining, but why would youvmake a certain propeller a certain way remains a mistery for me

[@oguzhanrayaman5979]

I didnt know spreading honey into bread was that complicated.

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

If you go deep enough, everything is!

[@7inviere]

:D

[@hansm_0161]

"Let's flow right into it" Ah yes

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Haha good one?

[@hansm_0161]

@@AdamTheEnginerd expected but still find it funny haha

[@l3gacy125]

ADAM IS ALIVE WITH SOME AERODINAMICS TOPICS LOVE IT!

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Always alive!

[@AoyagiAichou]

@@AdamTheEnginerd What about now???

[@GregsAirplanesandAutomobiles]

That's a great video. Thank you Adam, I enjoyed it.

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Thanks for the praise Greg!

[@martijn9568]

The man! the myth! the legend! He's here!

[@savasolarov8424]

Seeing the title of Adam's video, the first thing I thought of was Greg's video on this topi. I am good pavlov's dog.

[@omramchandrajieducational]

Hi Adam, I have been watching you for years, and wanted to tell you the impact of this specific video on my life. In 9th grade, I saw this video, while browsing your tutorials on how to play some prop planes. I got interested in laminar flow and flow of fluids, and began studying computational fluid dynamics, winning science fair in 10th grade, where I created a laminar flow airfoil cross section for 2 million reynold's number, and won some rewards from AIAA and US Office of Naval Research. Fastforward 2 years later to now, I just completed a 9 week internship in Germany at DLR (Deutch Zentrum fur Luft und Raumfahrt) over the summer after 11th grade, and may get a paper published about comparison of lattice boltzmann method (LBM) and FVM for flow through carbon aerogels for use in batteries. So thank you for this inspiration.

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

You are very welcome! I'm happy to hear this video has inspired you, and it sounds like you have a promising future ahead of you, keep it up!

[@drgondog]

FWIIW every North American Performance Analysis Report used 1/4 scale wind tunnel models at either 1.8x10^6 or 2x 1-^6 as the based RN for CD, which of course is well beyond Laminar Flow transition region. Congrats on a fabulous education. Our 9th graders today are mostly studying Hip Hop, Tik Tok as math and science require actual thought and critical thinking.

[@bluefox9436]

Oof I hope a lot of People actually watch that Video because I'm sick of talking to ppl who just trow the word laminar flow around without even knowing what it is...

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Yeah, so feel free to share it around ;).

[@silience4095]

Turbulent flow sticks better to airfoils, right? (Delayed separation). Is that why it helps prevent stalls?

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Yup, same reason as on golfballs.

[@burtonporter8437]

7% less drag a huge number in the real world lol

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Indeed it is, but to most people it sounds like a small percentage, and perhaps lower than they would expect given the near-legendary reputation of laminar flow. It's also an optimistic scenario for laminar flow too.

[@dsdy1205]

@@AdamTheEnginerd It sounds more impressive when you phrase it as the top speed increasing by an entire neighbourhood speed limit

[@lazyboy395]

This is why all my engineer friends play war thunder

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Maybe!

[@davidhald1857]

The legend is back. You should do a video on the c202’s wings

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

I've always been here! Hmm seems relatively straightforward though as far as I know.

[@juanordonezgalban2278]

Doesn't that plane have asymetrical wings to overcome propeller torque? I though that was an italian signature!

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

@@juanordonezgalban2278 Yeah, relatively straightforward. It wasn't done on most other Italian aircraft.

[@martijn9568]

@@AdamTheEnginerd ''Imagine have you plane pull to the right whenever you try to pull some Gs'', this post was made by the non- Macchi single engine fighter gang!

[@howardsu4796]

Is this what u think about when u in a dogfight?

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Maybe ;).

[@kingghidorah8106]

Thanks to this video I can get my certificate of aeronautical engineering.

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

For a certificate maybe.

[@gavynmalagarie4225]

I’m currently majoring in Aerospace Engineering and learning about Laminar flow at the moment! Very interesting topic & great video explaining it as well!!

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Thanks! I pretty much condense what people would find interesting and relevant to aircraft from my courses and weave a story around it, for example using the Mustang as a means to explain laminar flow. I find that satisfying.

[@pranavarvind4281]

It would be interesting to see a video on the benefits of elliptical wings, a la the Spitfire.

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Yeah perhaps one day.

[@hazart2798]

"snowman for scale"

[@hazart2798]

2:19

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Yeah?

[@hazart2798]

@@AdamTheEnginerd hmm? just a nice treat for comunity

[@richardschaffer5588]

British tests showed that the P 51 couldn’t achieve laminar flow over 40% more like 10% even with TLC and hand contouring, but it still a low drag wing. The P51 is a VERY smooth aircraft just compare to a Spitfire or 109, but laminar flow is just too hard the 1940s.

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Precisely.

[@Alphaaa13]

Laminar flow wings sadly still do not save the p51 from gajoobs anti rudder magic :( I really want to like the plane but the sideflop you get everytime you do any horizontal manouvering/aiming movement is just too infuriating for me.

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Anti-US rudder.

[@doch.8039]

> snowman to scale Where’s the man man, man?

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

It's there in the pic? The J2M's snowman looks much bigger than the P47's , that's the sense of scale you can compare those aircraft sizes with.

[@dsdy1205]

He's not there bc the Xray view isn't open

[@silience4095]

Yay! I was just watching a video on this exact topic yesterday, but applied to dolphins. Coincidence?

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Who knows!

[@pills-]

YT algorithm at it's finest "Drag coefficient of dolphins? Yes! How about the drag coefficient of laminar-flow wings on the P-51? They're about the same"

[@humanbeing9079]

it's definitely interesting how different corporations/countries had different approaches with the same technology. Like how the Germans was actively researching laminar flow but didn't find it worth it for their use while the Japanese used it for planes like the ki-61.

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

They used laminar flow on the Ki-61?

[@humanbeing9079]

@@AdamTheEnginerd apparently yes

[@pedrosabino8751]

@@AdamTheEnginerd If i'm not mistaken, they used in the Hawker Tempest too.

[@mircomartinez2666]

Source on the Germans researching laminar flow? Pretty sure that's an American invention, just like elliptical wings are a British invention.

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

@@mircomartinez2666 At that time, everyone knew of the benefits of laminar flow and elliptical wings. Nations chose not to pursue them because they were deemed not worth the complexity or risk of not working as intended.

[@Schwifty303]

If the laminar flow doesn't affect the high speed turning ability of the p51 (except for the reduced drag) how come the plane turns the way it does? Love these vids! Keep em going man!! ^^

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

It's due to its higher than average elevator authority at high speed. Thanks for the support!

[@martijn9568]

I'm not Adam, but what I think what he was trying to say is that laminar flow has nothing to do with the ability of a plane to turn well at high speeds. Overal laminar flow would probably decrease turn performance, as you can't pull as much angle of attack, because the wing stalls earlier.

[@brthibault]

Nice video!! Good to see the master teaching some fluid fundamentals better than many overpaid professors

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Hahaha thanks Bault! This video was way more fun to do than this semester's fluid assignments that's for sure.

[@brthibault]

@@AdamTheEnginerd an idea for another technical vid could encompass the static stability of aircraft and the various methods used in design for achieving stability (Has to be pitched in sim mode since "realistic" doesnt roll with that stuff, YAWn). And if you wanted to be a little bit more advanced you could mention different spiral modes that can occur if your aircraft isn't dynamically stable?

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Oof that's quite complicated though. Perhaps I can talk a bit about that while talking about the advantages of canards.

[@brthibault]

@@AdamTheEnginerd yeah that'd be good i didn't think of that. And you don't have to be too in depth but the purpose is to show people the difficulties and stresses ww2 pilots went through in certain planes if they were designed poorly in terms of static stability. Something that "realistic" players may take for granted;)

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

@@brthibault Yeah I'll consider it!

[@ConjointVR]

Does war thunder actually apply these physics in game?

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

WT has the drag coefficients for different parts of the aircraft already, so they could have done these calculations to get the wing drag coefficient. In WT however, the P-51's wing drag does not correspond to a laminar flow wing, but it's still among the lowest wing drag coefficient for a prop in the game.

[@customfighter8575]

Your voice sounds tired, i hope you can rest in the following weeks. Also you didn't use maple syrup as the example, how uncanadian of you :P

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

It sounds different than in other videos? Hahaha maybe I should have actually! But I think more people know what honey is compared to maple syrup.

[@aleksa1098]

Happy New Year man,love your informative vids as i'm highly addicted to aircraft,keep em coming

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Likewise! And thanks, I will! That's a good addiction ;).

[@aleksa1098]

@@AdamTheEnginerd yeah haha

[@Warkip]

Excelent video! As an aeronautical engineering student i knew most of the theory but there were some new things in there for me, for example the more skin friction on the bigger fuselages of aircraft with a radial engine.

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Thanks! Yeah it's satisfying to explain these technical concepts in relatively simple terms, at least imo.

[@Raylen23]

There should be a series where you just tell the pros and cons of a vehicle because the ones you havent flown like most premiums we dont get your great list of pros and cons

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

I guess, but at that point it would be better in a spreadsheet if there's no gameplay that goes along with it.

[@Raylen23]

@@AdamTheEnginerd yeah that would work too bc you can't fly every plane and make a vid for each one but it would still be nice having your input on them bc I take a lot of your tips and improve like 10x so it's always nice seeing what you have to say about an aircraft

[@howtoTH_Life]

so is it better for P-51 to use traditional wing instead?

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Better off not putting the investment into laminar flow, but it was still a low drag wing in the end.

[@radosaworman7628]

Proposition of topic: Impact of tail configuration on manuverability in high and low speed. (if it's not clear enough there's an explanation: I observed that many planes with good low speed turn perfomance (zero, ki-43, hurricane, La's, yak's) have usually elevators set slightly forward of the rudder. That made me think that it might be beneficial for staying mauverable in all speeds to have a plane with variable tail configuration (that is ability to move whole horisontal stabiliser move forwards and backwards across the fuselage lenght. )

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

The position of the tail is for balance, all aircraft strictly controlled by a human require balance and enough control authority to make the required maneuvers at high and low speeds. Appropriate balance is helpful, but the position of the tail is only a part of it, and every aircraft will have different weight distributions, requiring different tail sizes and positions. You can't just look at the tail to see if an aircraft is maneuverable or not. Variable tail position would be a very complicated system. Moveable elevator is a better system for maneuvering, and for trim you can change the angle of the horizontal stabilizer.

[@sule.A]

To help rudder control at high aoa

[@diegodelizsoto]

So its true adam even looks at honey on bread on a scientific level

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

EVERYTHING!

[@APFS-DS]

Next do P factor?

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Maybe I'll do a video on propellers eventually.

[@HuntersOfficial2020]

😬😬bro your explanation gives me goosebumps...I thought u were gonna explain it simply but wow I'm impressed, man! Thank you

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Glad you liked it!

[@stanhathcoat920]

Laminar flow was probably never achieved in the field of combat. The P47 was tested with a laminar flow wing, with very little difference between laminar flow & the Severski wing in reality. The P47M & N were both much faster than the P51D with it's supposed "laminar flow wing". Much ado about nothing.

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Well even if a plane does have laminar flow, it wouldn't automatically make it faster than everything else.

[@thefellathathuntsvatniks]

And the reason why Mustang is a dangerous enemy for German and Japanese fighters during WW2. With laminar flow airfoils, the Mustang can go faster than its German and Japanese aircraft.

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

It's not because of its laminar flow, it's mainly for every other reason I list at the end of the video.

[@coolbubba7337]

Ever heard of the Bachem Natter Viper? Anyways, it supposedly broke the sound barrier in a dive. A very fast one. What beats me is how it's stubby little wings kept it up. Could you explain how that could work?

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Quick Wikipedia search says some models came near Mach 1. But stubby wings are relatively better at high speed than low speed. They'll be lighter for the same load carrying capability too.

[@ImInLoveWithBulla]

From everything I’ve heard about it, the designers purposefully hyped the laminar flow properties of the wings so no one would look too much into the under-belly radiator. Much like how Lotus engineers would drape blankets over the rear wing of their car so people wouldn’t catch on to the ground effects and side skirts.

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

That's an interesting theory.

[@matheusdelimarodrigues4410]

I love your vids Adam!! Keep up the excellent work!!

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Thanks! Will do!

[@bryanvontoasty]

I subscribed to you yesterday after wat hung the re 205 video where you were talking about laminar flow for your passenger plane your designing in chat. I tried googling laminar flow but I learnt nothing and then I opened yt and I see this. Coincidence? Yeah probably but I like to believe it's not.

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

It was actually the C205, but welcome! Hopefully this video cleared up laminar flow for you.

[@temptemp8190]

Adam, I have a question for you, not related to the video (which was great btw). In a lot of your videos, I see that you make the enemy overshoot, then kill them. But when you are the one overshooting, and you don't have enough speed to extend away safely, what are you supposed to do? Do you have to pull up early to prevent overshooting altogether? Or is there something else?

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Yeah either pull up earlier, or chop throttle (I much prefer pulling up and going back down instead of reducing throttle).

[@keezin800]

Hi Adam, I assume ur still a college student. Are u an engineering major? I took physics 1 and 2 last year and I actually understood a good amount of what u were talking about in this video haha

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Doing my Masters in engineering currently yeah.

[@from_space]

You should explain the graphics you use briefly. It took me a minute to understand that the plate in the graphic at 2:44 was represented by the x-axis and that the wing shaped areas were representing the speed of the moving air. For people who are dealing with those graphics on a regular basis it is probably obvious. But for someone like me who is not it isn't.

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Yeah thanks for the feedback. I should have spent more time on it, but also it wasn't the main point of the video so I didn't.

[@wetzel1628]

Is laminar flow affected by wing geometry or does it only correlate with airfoil shape? For example is it possible to achieve laminar flow with an elliptical wing?

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Yes it is possible, but some geometries make it harder. For example, swept wings make it harder to conserve laminar flow. So it's both, but airfoil shape is more important than geometry.

[@simpilot001]

I imagine a hypersonic aircraft would benefit from laminar flow airfoils correct? At that speed one is likely more concerned with rage than stall characteristics and lift coefficients.

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

At that speed, laminar flow isn't possible.

[@vitinhoaps]

Why you don't have a single video with any Lavochkin? I was trying to learn how to play as soviets and didn't find much.

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Well I do, I have La7 and La9.

[@nightshade4873]

Do wing slats help with maintaining laminar flow? and can it affect turning performance? is it possible that one can calculate the amount of lift generated only using surface area regardless of airfoil?

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

No, slats would hinder laminar flow with the gaps it has. Slats help turn. Nope, you need the lift coefficient.

[@kermittheancientfrog1335]

Hey can you Bring the bf109 g6 with the additional cannons, I made us 6 kills in a game

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Probably wouldn't load gunpods on the G6 though, and I already have a G6 video.

[@0MoTheG]

Aren't laminar and transonic airfoils similar in shape? Maybe that was the actual advantage?

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

They are more similar in shape (thinner, that's about it) than conventional airfoils of that time. However, transonic airfoils would not be useful for WW2 purposes, since the drag benefit applies to wave drag (transonic drag), which only starts having a significant impact at M0.7+.

[@royhsieh4307]

sir. you deserved all the silver lions you have in war thunder

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Haha why?

[@royhsieh4307]

i like this channel, very informative and makes good use of war thunder. i am good with wt but never made anything constructive out of that 😂

[@jaiell2049]

Aight that explains the honey

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Sticky honey.

[@Raylen23]

I suggest the ki-61 hei (either) I would love to see how you do with such an amazing plane and I'm sure you haven't done a video on it before

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

It's on my list! Not really a fan of most Ki61s though.

[@Raylen23]

@@AdamTheEnginerd you dont seem like the type to love Japanese planes thats for sure

[@asafemartins2476]

Hi Adam! I love your educational videos, you havr a lot of knowledge! You are engineer? I'm sorry by question. Like.

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Thanks for the support! Yeah I am.

[@Silavite]

Tangentially related due to laminar flow; what are your thoughts on the Celera 500L?

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Skeptical, we'll see what happens.

[@nekomancer4641]

I don't know wtf is happening but Mustang is my fav plane so I'm here

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Haha you don't have to understand every detail of my explanations to understand the conclusion of this video, right?

[@radius507]

2 things, is ur profile pic the arrow? And what are your thoughts on a Canadian tech tree/ do you think the arrow could come to the game in the future?

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

1. Yup. 2. Nope, no gun.

[@kidpagronprimsank05]

Off topic. Can dimple apply to a car can make it more efficient?

[@HAMlLTON]

At the beginning he explains why a rod/cylinder shape is impeded more by pressure and not skin friction. A cars shape to me seems much more wing/fuselage shaped than ball shaped.

[@nade5557]

@@HAMlLTON i would say cars are more rod shaped, which is why spoilers (not rear wings) can sometimes reduce drag by reducing the wake size of the car despite increasing skin friction. In fact there was an experiment done which showed a car with dimples had 29 mpg whereas a smooth car got 26, showing the drag reduction in the form of efficiency. Apparently car companies don't dimple their cars because they don't think it will sell

[@RichardVSmall]

@@nade5557 Got a link to that experiment? Sounds interesting :)

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Mythbusters made an episode on that, but I think they just compared a dirty car to a clean car. Their results were that it made no significant difference IIRC. Car is less blunt than a sphere but more blunt than an airfoil, tough to say outright if dimples would be better.

[@nade5557]

That experiment actually was a mythbusters episode it turns out, here is the link! Man I love mythbusters kzbin.info/www/bejne/jIbMeJuvfahgZ6M

[@MDzmitry]

God, I want to support the channel but I'm having session exams in a week and can't consume any more knowledge. Is there any shortened retell? Or simply a TL;DR? Edit: I liked the video anyway and hope it'll help making it more popular.

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Thanks for the thought, but don't worry about it! Just come back to it later after your exam session, it'll be here when you get back!

[@MDzmitry]

@@AdamTheEnginerd sure will

[@anneallison6402]

Have you consider playing IL2?

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

I have considered.

[@MultiBenjiiii]

I mean, formula 1 cars are made to produce as much Downforce as possible with the least drag possible, and they have many vortex generators so that can guide the air wherever they want it to go, just because it produces some kind of drag, does not mean it’s not aerodynamic

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Sure, but not sure why you're saying this.

[@MultiBenjiiii]

@@AdamTheEnginerd Because you mentioned Airliners using vortices generators for better stall characteristics, it made me think of all the elements of F1 cars that are made specifically for that purpose as well, I didn't mean it as a negative comment, loved the video !

[@baptistehertrich3624]

OMG, Reynold's number, somthing that made me so many nightmare during my undergraduate school. Now I'm crying in the shower trying to manage my PTSD =)

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Hahaha the Reynolds number itself was always the easy to understand part of whatever we were doing in fluids.

[@martijn9568]

Didn't the first post war fighter jets also use a laminar flow wing? Because I remember reading or hearing that the F-86 Sabre also had a laminar foil.

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Hmm I highly doubt the F86 had laminar flow, swept wings and higher speeds will make it even harder to maintain laminar flow than on the P-51.

[@martijn9568]

@@AdamTheEnginerd or it at least was designed with that in mind, possibly because they did not know any better, yet.

[@supermickey6196]

Hey um I’ve been struggling to use my Sabre f-35 and I was wondering if u could either explain how to use it or make a video on it thx!

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

I don't really play much jets these days, so can't help.

[@supermickey6196]

@@AdamTheEnginerd frick that’s ok thx for replying back tho

[@kampgruppe101]

Im actually using some of your videos as refresher material for my aerospace course in university. And also to better appreciate the aircraft in war thunder hehe. thanks for fueling my passion in aerospace :)

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Thank you for your support!

[@j.thomas7128]

Is there a more advanced video that explains how/why streamlining is not an example of laminar air flow when considering the purist definition of laminar air flow which is how layers of air move against/with each other and not how air moves against a solid?

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Shaping something to be laminar flow would count as streamlining, but streamlining (i.e. reducing drag) is much broader. Many things fall under streamlining, such as reducing wetted area, and favoring laminar flow.

[@j.thomas7128]

@@AdamTheEnginerd correct. hence my question...

[@nocreo5185]

I feel intelligent.

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Good?

[@F6FHellcat5]

That covered a good 80% of my aerodynamics class.

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Efficient then ;).

[@unluckycharms8473]

Can you play the sea fire fr 47 since the downtown it’s good

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Downtier* haha? It's on my list!

[@shashlik7959]

Does the p51 always have laminar flow in war thunder based on it's top speed

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

You can't know from it's top speed, you know by checking the wing drag coefficient, and it does not have laminar flow in WT. It still has one of the lowest wing drag coefficients for a prop though.

[@dsdy1205]

@@AdamTheEnginerd Does War Thunder even model laminar / turbulent flow? I thought they just work with a table of drag coefficients without regard for the actual flow structure

[@zahin8808]

i stopped. playing war thunder because the new update gave me big lag

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

F.

[@5000mahmud]

Great explanation, will you make a video on other types of drag, such as induced drag?

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Yeah probably one day!

[@5000mahmud]

@@AdamTheEnginerd looking forward to it, your explanations are very clear. The honey analogy really helped 👍

[@batista9419]

DESTIN aka smarter every day let's see who gets the reference

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Me ;).

[@firmanpandi9666]

Hey Adam, I curious about aircraft turn radius. Can you help to explaine and give us the formula about them? As I play Sim Battle, I noticed that I can't out turn Yak-1 in my 109F despite have similar turn rates. I can clearly see the yak turn tighter and better in both 2 circle and 1 circle fight. As far as I know, lowering speed before the stall speed can help reduce the radius, as well as using flaps. But I can't understand well how non slated Yak Wings didn't stall in high AoA while my 109 starting stalling to the torque direction despite both of us do a low speed high AoA fights and both of us using Landing flaps enabled. (Actually this fight ended up in fair fight, as both of us stalled to our dead lol)

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

I made a video on turn performance! kzbin.info/www/bejne/fofLl2uegcSVq7c&ab_channel=AdamTheEnginerd

[@firmanpandi9666]

@@AdamTheEnginerd let me see... Geez, I forget you've uploaded one already XD My bad... lol

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

@@firmanpandi9666 No worries!

[@drgondog]

Adam - excellent tutorial. A suggestion. It should be noted that Laminar flow over a flat plate transition near RN= 0.6x10^6 - which is a very low airspeed based on MAC of the Mustang wing. Implicitly the next stage of Transitional Turbulent Boundary layer before full blown Turbulence near the region of adverse pressure gradient - should be the focus of comparison between the Mustang NAA/NACA 45-100 airfoil with T/C max ~ 38-40% vs NACA 23015 or Republic S-3 with T/C max ~ 30%. True - the Horkey team, using Kutta-Jukowski, Theordorsen and Prandtl transformations began the analysis & design based on reducing T/C, LE shape, etc of the NACA 450125 Laminar Flow airfoil, then further refined based on desirable CMac and stall characteristics but they quickly learned that the Mustang wing was not 'Laminar'. NAA always described the wing as High Speed/Low Drag - never 'Laminar'. What was discovered was that the Transitional Turbulent BL while 'thicker' and increased as a f(T/C), it was much smaller than turbulent BL and chaotic eddies beyond T/C> 50%. When the Germans tested a captured P-51B (from D-Day), they discovered the same phenomena and commented that the wing's 'attached' BL was greater than 25% more than any previous airfoil of best fighters. The Bf 109 had a modified NACA 23015 and the FW 190 a 23015.5. Such major separation. of course, increased friction drag, but I would pose that the smaller associated 'frontal' region of relatively quiet flow and area seen by the freestream past the T/Cmax perhaps reduced comparatively the pressure drag associated with a real wing. Your comments?

[@Acid_Burn9]

Finally something interesting in my feed. Thanks for the vid!

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Haha my pleasure!

[@ArtietheArchon]

i appreciate this explanation of laminar flow with regard to aircraft. even your skepticism that the p-51 could actually achieve a significant amount of laminar flow in real world use. you aren't the only one with this skepticism. it is interesting you compared the p-51 to the p-47, as the p-47 used an in-house wing shape unlike the vast majority of fighters which used a NACA airfoil. I don't remember all the details but if I recall correctly, one p-47 was tested with a laminar flow wing and did not see an increase in performance (I could be wrong). the seversky wing was apparently pretty good, one other small thing the P-47 did differently was carry the same fuselage width all the way to the trailing edge of the wing before it began to taper

[@tuur9210]

I was just learning this for my exam Thanks man. What exactly are you studying?

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

My pleasure! I have a Bachelors of Aerospace Engineering, currently doing a Masters in Mechanical.

[@tuur9210]

@@AdamTheEnginerd Wow nice, I just started my bachelor in aviation. The 'rona doesn't help though ... Could I spot a Dutch accent in your videos? Greetings from Belgium in any case, and keep making great video's

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Nope, I'm Canadian. Yeah my entire first semester (fall) of my masters was online. I will!

[@martijn9568]

@@tuur9210 Succes!! P.S. Mag ik trouwens vragen welke onderwijs instelling?

[@tuur9210]

@@martijn9568 Thanks!, ik zit in het VLOC(vlaams luchtvaart opleidingscentrum) op de luchthaven van Oostende

[@foairborne]

Your offer is false. I clicked on your link and it says that I can subscribe for a yearly fee of Billed $30 annually or $5/month billed monthly, which doesn't include access to the Curiosity platform and yet you claim that by using your sponsored link I get it for less than $15.00 a year? Come on man, you're playing masterhead here. You aren't the only smarty pants around the block!

[@lqr824]

The Seversky wing on the P-47 and its forebears is credited with its success. If its benefit isn't laminar flow, what IS its benefit?

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

You can have a low-drag wing without laminar flow. Laminar flow is just the best you can get in terms of low drag.

[@lqr824]

@@AdamTheEnginerd so what was the secret in the Seversky wing's low drag?

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

That I don't know.

[@จักษ์นาถะพินธุ]

So...F-15, F-16, F-35, F-22,...also use laminar flow as P-51D Mustang!😅😅😅 / actually the American engineers just copied the sweep wing technology from the German after WW2 ended. This shown that German engineers were far better than American in wing technology!

[@benjaminabc6565]

One question, how can I make the game show me those special flight characteristics that you have?

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Overlay: forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/483838-warthunder-real-time-information/

[@benjaminabc6565]

@@AdamTheEnginerd thx so much

[@kurayami2611]

This is more interesting and fun then an actual school lesson god i could listen to you all day teaching

[@SoloRenegade]

the P-51 prototype wing, when tested by NACA in their wind tunnel, had 50% lower drag than the next best wing in existence at that time. As laminar flow wings had not been used before, NAA engineers hedged their bets and had a backup non-laminar flow wing design ready incase the laminar flow wing didn't work, so that they could still deliver their prototype P-51 to the UK on time.

[@fishboxsi1]

Great video! When I saw it I first thought “great another BS video how P-51 had laminar flow and all that false hopefulness of the P-51 fans :) I’m happy you touched on the reality of the design. Only thing I would add at the part you explain laminar flow over the P-51’s wings would be “P-51 had laminar flow wing design witch doesn’t mean it has laminar flow wings” still love your video’s and can’t wait for the next one :)

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Thanks fish! I mean, that's kinda self-explanatory when I say why significant laminar flow was doubtful on the P-51.

[@panagiotismastoras4902]

Can you have a keyboard cam or something like that because i want to learn how to play like you

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Euh you can play like me without that, keybinds and what I press at what time isn't important imo. What's important is developing your game sense and knowledge about aircraft and guns.

[@panagiotismastoras4902]

@@AdamTheEnginerd ok thank you but i dont know a single manuver and thats why i am dead every single match

[@X1Zeth2X]

skin friction ;)

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Yeah ;).

[@wikikomoto]

why don't you use a simulator for these videos? why use war thunder?

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

It doesn't matter what I use, and you'd have a tough time arguing that WT isn't a sim.

[@wikikomoto]

@@AdamTheEnginerd i suppose that depends on what you define as a sim. personally, i'd consider war thunder about as much of a flight simulator as call of duty is a shooting simulator :P but whatever works!

[@avidaviation67]

19 seconds ago eh 3rd view

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Not bad.

[@CreeperOnYourHouse]

Considering how you mention that quality of production would affect the ability to maintain laminar flow over the air foil, I am left wondering how much of a difference there was in speed of early versus late production for the P51 within the same model type.

[@bariqharb2835]

As someone studying aero eng. This very well explained and is consistent with the theory! Wondering what text book you used? Also covering flight vehicle propulsion would be an awesome topic. From piston engines, propellers, to jet propulsion

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Thanks for the praise! No textbook, just from equations used in my courses. I did piston engines vs jets in this video! kzbin.info/www/bejne/bZqbiJ6OoLR3q68&ab_channel=AdamTheEnginerd

[@bariqharb2835]

@@AdamTheEnginerd I may or may not have binged your whole series and I have to say that they are pretty much spot on with the explanations! Keep up the great work man!

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

@@bariqharb2835 Thanks mate!

[@TheKevinFanClub526]

7:16 That is super interesting. Applying a relatively basic concept to aircraft design. This makes total sense.

[@dogeness]

Do airfoils have no pressure drag because the air stays attached during flight?

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Hmm no, even if flow remains perfectly attached you still have a small amount of pressure drag, it's just that skin friction drag is the major part of drag on (well-designed) wings. In fact, in some of my courses, to calculate airfoil drag we calculate skin friction drag, and multiply it by a factor taking into account the airfoils thickness to chord ratio.

[@dogeness]

@@AdamTheEnginerd Oh ok. So the air downstream of the airfoil has a lower pressure than upstream due to viscous losses, and that causes the pressure difference?

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

@@dogeness Yeah, though you could say that's separation. There's always going to be separation at some point on the wing even at low AoA.

[@nightshade7745]

4:15 graph why

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Why what?

[@royhsieh4307]

its not hard to visualize skin friction drag when shockwave enters the chat

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

I think shockwaves are more in the pressure drag department.

[@royhsieh4307]

@@AdamTheEnginerd but that happens when air cant move away quick enough, then skin friction drag would have to do with that, the shockwave is usually aft of the object, i would say the location of shockwave tells u where the departments are separated

[@toomi195]

I heard that in the p51 manual it states that the wing is "of laminar flow design" and that it doesnt state anywhere that its actually a laminar flow wing

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Well sure, but the point of a laminar flow design is still to achieve some laminar flow.

[@toomi195]

@@AdamTheEnginerd well yeah, but how much laminar flow makes it a laminar flow wing? I always thought it meant that it retained laminar flow across the whole surface, but i learned different. Great vid Adam :)

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

@@toomi195 No, you'd need an active system to attempt to achieve laminar flow on the whole wing for an aircraft that carries humans at decent speeds. Thanks!

[@appa609]

Edit: I'm happy to see you addressed the major failings of the conventional wisdom and came to the likely correct conclusion. Laminar boudnary layers are pretty sensitive to perturbation: They are likely to be turbulated by any surface imperfection more than a fraction (experimentally ~20%) of the boudnary layer thickness (99% freestream) , and once turbulated, the turbulent region propagates outwards along the surface as a Tollmien-Schlichtling wave producing a turbulent cone. This basically guarantees that any portion of the wing near the fuselage or wingtips, in the prop wash, or aft of wing skin seams or gunports, or even dust and splattered bugs will be fully turbulent from the leading edge. In addition, a laminar boundary layer can also be turbulated by surface vibrations, surface temperature variation, and adverse pressure gradients, as the top surface of the airfoil would experience when producing lift. I worked for several years on landspeed record vehicles that rely heavily on extending the laminar boundary layer. The best result we've predicted and verified on any vehicle is ~50% laminar surface area using a heavily 3D-optimized shape with no seams or protrusions, meticulously smooth surface, vibrational damping, and painted flat white to minimize heating. We routinely measure siginficant performance drops due to minor scratches, bugs hitting the shell, or non-ideal weather. In short, I would be *extremely* surprised if the P-51 wing on any real aircraft got close to 40% surface area in a laminar boundary layer even in ideal flight conditions.

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Damn that's very cool work! Yeah it's a challenge to maintain laminar flow on big/fast vehicles. Mass-produced vehicles with 1940 techniques having significant laminar flow is indeed doubtful.

[@markomenalan]

wow this video is so really well made ! It really helped me visualise some concepts a lot better!

[@fredmdea785]

At around 8:30 you show where laminar flow should be more likely/possible. Dont wingtip vortices disrupt the laminar flow as well close to the wingtips? Love these technical videos.

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Hmm I don't think it would significantly affect laminar flow, the boundary layer is a very thin effect close to the surface, while the wingtip vortices are much bigger in size. I imagine it affects the very edge of the wing, but that would be negligible lost surface compared to the rest.

[@tylertronica2976]

I realize first-year aero engineering uni topics are easier to condense into layman's terms for a video, but I think it'd be nice to see you get a bit more technical and make a video on something like flight dynamics propagation be it through linear or nonlinear modeling. Linear modeling would let you easily segue into basic stability theory given that state-space system representations are fairly straightforward to explain, and nonlinear modeling would also then allow you to segue into Euler angles/quaternions and how they pertain to shifting reference frames for flight modeling/simulation. All in all, I think this would give a nice high level overview of the underlying simulation mechanics in war thunder!

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

I also think explaining general concepts simply is more interesting and more useful for the general population than going in depth in a given topic. For now, the most in depth I'd go is the basics of my coded simulations, for example for my climb rate and dive videos (discrete time).

[@NickG_214]

You should talk about the Meredith effect.

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

It's on my list!

[@masterdurick5667]

You may or may not have seen a video that spoke about the myth of the effectiveness of the meredith effect. In that video, it said that the mustang had less parasite drag than a spitfire, despite being much bigger than a spitfire! (The larger the aircraft, you'd usually expect a greater parasite drag) The video attributed that to high production quality of the mustang too. This is the video btw: kzbin.info/www/bejne/haLMeGyMfdp1mK8

[@AdamTheEnginerd]

Yup I have! Rewatching now actually.